Re: Ch. 7: Primary Sources (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
First of all people can look at this thread you have provided and judge for themselves. This is the thread where you D.B. Roy 'explain' how Josephus and Tacitus are not reliable. Unfortunately for you, actual trained specialist scholars and historians on Josephus and Tacitus don't agree with you or Richard Carrier.
It's quite clear that you just ignored a detailed response I did provide on that thread on the scholarly views on Josephus.
I'll humour you on this, and show the response I provided on that thread again here.http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
And this, on one of Carrier's articles on Josephus. https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-cri ... n-Josephus
And again D.B., name a single specialist scholar on Josephus who agrees with Carrier's so called analysis? You can of course produce your own peer reviewed scholarly article on Josephus and put it up for review.
When you do I might take you seriously.www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/peopl ... sus-exist/
I know what Carrier's views are having watched hours of his online talks on this subject. I'm not deaf. I provided numerous links providing rebuttals and critiques of his work on that thread,with my own criticisms.
Again you forget,I already addressed his thesis on that thread. I don't have to wait for some point in his book to critique his thesis.
In reality he has a theory which he imposes on the gospels,Paul's letters and other biblical texts.
Alleged hallucinations of a sub-lunar Jesus,pagan copycat assertions,a theory that the gospel of Mark is deliberately constructed myth emulating Homer,and Greek mystery religions.
This theory drags him into absurd assertions,bad exegesis,and error piled upon error in trying to mix and match imagined parallels from the O.T., Greek myth and mystery religions.
I don't fault him on all points. Sometimes he recognizes there is typology in the O.T. but goes over the top with it. Jesus pointed to as the lamb of God by John the Baptist,is clearly a typological description.
Christianity teaches the providential control by God of all things, even a sparrow falling to the ground. Carrier's naturalism rejects this so he sees events that may be typological as too coincidental to be real history,and posits literary construction
Mark Goodacre charitably referred to his imaginative leaps. Carrier goes way overboard with this and jumbles it with pagan myth and mystery religion which ends in a nonsense reading of Mark.
He's right though to recognize the messianic prophecy of a suffering messiah in the O.T. unlike some other skeptics, but he just construes this as Paul and the apostles creating Christ out of hallucinations and these texts.
He can't accept that an historical Christ actually died in fulfillment of these prophecies.
In the debate with Wm. Lane Craig some examples of how this works in practice were shown.
On that other thread, I provided a link to a book where his ideas and methodology in this are critiqued in some detail.
The writers are quite harsh rhetorically, but the criticisms of his theories and works are undoubtedly accurate and correct most if not all the time.
See chapters 5 and 9 if interested. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... ertide.pdf
The agnostic N.T.scholar Bart Ehrman described Carrier's book as "a mass of errors." His theory imposes on the gospels a category error on genre,and the resultant methodology, unfortunately but inevitably produces these bizarre and absurd results.